U.S. v. Dingwell

In prosecution on robbery and brandishing firearm during crime of violence, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion in limine that sought ruling that would allow her to present evidence to support her duress defense, including expert evidence on battering and its effects. Record showed that defendant actually held gun during three charged robberies, and that her alleged abusive boyfriend was not present at any robbery. In order to establish duress defense, defendant must establish reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury and absence of reasonable, legal alternative to committing crime, and Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff’s evidence, including her claim that her abusive boyfriend severely beat her, threatened her with gun on occasion and directed her to commit charged robberies in effort to obtain money for boyfriend’s drug purchases, did not meet either element for duress defense, where, among other things, boyfriend was not present during robberies. Ct. of Appeals, though, found that immediate physical presence of threat is not always essential to duress defense, and that Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s request to present evidence from expert witness, who diagnosed defendant as suffering from P.T.S.D. and Battered Woman Syndrome, that would inform jury as to how objectively reasonable person under defendant’s circumstances might behave.